December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

can Sun Tzu be a cypherpunks?
by nobody＠nowhere.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Quotations from the Art Of War by Sun Tzu A Military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective. Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion. Use humility to make them haughty. Tire them by flight. Cause division among them. Attack when they are unprepared, make your move when they do not expect it. The formation and procedure used by the military should not be divulged beforehand. Comment: He seems to be advocating security through obscurity here. The one who figures on victory at headquarters before even doing battle is the one who has the most strategic factors on his side. The one who figures on inability to prevail at headquarters before doing battle is the one who has the least strategic factors on his side. The one with many strategic factors in his favor wins, the one with few strategic factors in his favor loses--how much more so for the one with no strategic factors in his favor. Observing the matter this way, I can see who will win and who will lose. The superior militarist strikes while schemes are being laid. The next best is to attack alliances. The next best is to attack the army. Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent. Therefore skilled warriors are able to be invincible, but they cannot cause opponents to be vulnerable. That is why it is said that victory can be discerned but not manufactured. Invincibility is a matter of defense, vulnerability is a matter of attack. Therefore the victories of good warriors are not noted for cleverness or bravery. Therefore their victories in battle are not flukes. Their victories are not flukes because they position themselves where they will surely win, prevailing over those who have already lost. So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose, and do not overlook conditions that make an opponent prone to defeat. Therefore a victorious army first wins and then seeks battle; a defeated army first battles and then seeks victory. Those who use arms well cultivate the Way and keep the rules. Thus they can govern in such a way as to prevail over the corrupt. Comment: Would it not be wonderful if we could prevail over the corrupt? Making the armies able to take on opponents without being defeated is a matter of unorthodox and orthodox methods. Therefore those skilled at the unorthodox are infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers. When they come to an end, they begin again, like the days and months; they die and are reborn, like the four seasons. The unorthodox and the orthodox give rise to each other, like a beginningless circle--who could exhaust them? Disorder arises from order, cowardice arises from courage, weakness arises from strength. Therefore those who skillfully move opponents make formations that the opponents are sure to follow, give what opponents are sure to take. They move opponents with the prospect of gain, waiting for them in ambush. To unfailingly take what you attack, attack where there is no defense. For unfailingly secure defense, defend where there is no attack. So in the case of those who are skilled in attack, their opponents do not know where to defend. In the case of those skilled in defense, their opponents do not know where to attack. Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate. Comment: Are cypherpunks capable of this? To advance irresistibly, push through their gaps, to retreat elusively, outspeed them. Induce them to adopt specific formations, in order to know the ground of death and life. Comment: Sounds like known plaintext attack to me. Therefore the consummation of forming an army is to arrive at formlessness. When you have no form, undercover espionage cannot find out anything, intelligence cannot form a strategy. Comment: Sun Tzu seems to being saying that if your cipher is properly designed, you need not rely on security through obscurity. Victory over multitudes by means of formation is unknowable to the multitudes. Everyone knows the form by which I am victorious, but no one knows the form by which I ensure victory. Military formation is like water--the form of water is to avoid the high and go to the low, the form of a military force is to avoid the full and attack the empty; the flow of water is determined by the earth, the victory of a military force is determined by the opponent. So a military force has not constant formation, water has no constant shape;the ability to gain victory by changing and adapting according to the opponent is called genius. Foreknowledge cannot be gotten from ghosts and spirits, cannot be had by analogy, cannot be found out by calculation. It must be obtained from people, people know the conditions of the enemy. There are five kinds of spy: The local spy, the inside spy, the reverse spy, the dead spy, and the living spy. When the five kinds of spies are all active, no one knows their routes--this is called organizational genius, and is valuable to the leadership. Local spies are hired from among the people of a locality; Inside spies are hired from among enemy officials. Reverse spies are hired from enemy spies. Dead spies transmit false intelligence to enemy spies. Living spies come back to report. Question: Can cypherpunks use these methods to defeat those who would take our freedom?

3 3

Child Porn
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Forward) *** NY student charged with sending child sex photos over Internet Nathaniel Levy, a psychology major at New York State University, was charged Wednesday with using the Internet to transmit photos of infants having sex with adults, the New York state attorney general said. Levy, who wanted to be a kindergarten teacher, was arrested for promoting sexual performance of a child. If convicted he could receive seven years in prison. Levy, whose computer name was "NateTSnake," was released Wednesday on $20,000 bail. He allegedly transmitted 35 sexually explicit photos of children, some as young as 18 months. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1219452-9f3 -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Multimedia

1 0

c2 internet accounts
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

does c2net still offer internet accounts? I liked their offer for internet accounts with a 5 mb web site via telnet. does anyone else know of a place for cheap telnet only accounts? thanks;

3 2

c2 internet accounts
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

does c2net still offer internet accounts? I liked their offer for internet accounts with a 5 mb web site via telnet. does anyone else know of a place for cheap telnet only accounts? thanks;

1 0

Child Porn
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Forward) *** NY student charged with sending child sex photos over Internet Nathaniel Levy, a psychology major at New York State University, was charged Wednesday with using the Internet to transmit photos of infants having sex with adults, the New York state attorney general said. Levy, who wanted to be a kindergarten teacher, was arrested for promoting sexual performance of a child. If convicted he could receive seven years in prison. Levy, whose computer name was "NateTSnake," was released Wednesday on $20,000 bail. He allegedly transmitted 35 sexually explicit photos of children, some as young as 18 months. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1219452-9f3 -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Multimedia

1 0

Internet companies demonstrate portable security
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Forward) Internet companies demonstrate portable security Six Internet companies have joined forces to develop a joint demonstration of smartcard technologies at the 1997 RSA Data Security Conference. Consensus Development Corporation, Gemplus, Hewlett-Packard, Litronic Inc., Netscape Communications Corporation and VeriSign, Inc., Monday announced "The Get Smartcard Demo." The interactive demo will allow each conference attendee to load X509v3 certificates on crypto-enabled smartcards. Participants will interact with the demo through mutually authenticated SSL connections and document signing. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1274540-213 -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Multimedia

1 0

[ANNOUNCE] PGP Signatures
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dinghy Vindictive K[ondom]OfTheMinute died of AIDS last night with his queer lover. _ O O _ \-|-\_/-|-/ Dinghy Vindictive K[ondom]OfTheMinute /^\ /^\ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1 0

Re: Genetic Algorithms
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What a joy to make a public mockery of Dr.Defecated L>eech< Vicious! |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ __ | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | O~-_ Dr.Defecated L>eech< Vicious | >----|-|-|-|-|-|-|--| __/ | / / / / / / / / |__\ |/ / / / / / / /

1 0

Re: Trigger-Words...
by Martin Janzen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

harka(a)nycmetro.com writes: >does anybody know any contact points/Web pages, where I might get >some information on e-mail filtering via trigger-words? I am >interested in how this technology specifically works and a >acollection of trigger-words would be nice too :) You might start with the Mail Filtering FAQ: http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/mail/filtering-faq/faq.h… It's pretty Unix-specific, covering procmail, Elm filter, and mailagent. For PC-based mailers, you're probably better off checking the documentation and/or the web page for the one you're using. Finally, take a look at the comp.mail.* newsgroups. Or just use the search engines, throwing in combinations of the above terms... -- Martin Janzen janzen(a)idacom.hp.com Pegasus Systems Group c/o Hewlett-Packard Company, CMD Vancouver

1 0

AltaVista sprouts a hole ...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Russell Stuart <R.Stuart(a)rsm.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:07:27 +1000 From: Russell Stuart <R.Stuart(a)rsm.com.au> To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: AltaVista sprouts a hole ... From: risko(a)csl.sri.com (RISKS List Owner) Newsgroups: comp.risks Subject: RISKS DIGEST 18.77 Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.1.853810937.risko(a)chiron.csl.sri.com> RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Monday 20 January 1997 Volume 18 : Issue 77 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks) ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator ***** See last item for further information, disclaimers, caveats, etc. ***** <snip> ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jan 97 23:52:00 +0100 From: Anders Andersson <andersa(a)Mizar.DoCS.UU.SE> Subject: Leaking WWW surfer interest profiles I notice that AltaVista's inline advertisements link to a server outside Digital, "ad.doubleclick.net", and that the URL includes the user's list of keywords being searched. I'm concerned that these URL's may occasionally leak information about the user's interests and inclinations to third parties, information which the user may prefer to keep private. This is not a new problem that appeared with the inline ads, since also the Referer: field of the HTTP protocol discloses to a target server exactly what AltaVista index page led the user to it. However, this requires that the user willfully follows that link. If sensitive information being leaked via the Referer: field is a problem, the user may obtain client software that withholds Referer: data, either conditionally or unconditionally. Also, a user who has asked AltaVista for "gay" pages is probably not too concerned about accidentally disclosing this fact to the maintainer of said "gay" pages. However, the doubleclick.net ads appear to bear no relationship to the keywords being searched, and they appear not only in the URL for the hyperlink to follow, but also in the IMG SRC URL. This means that in order to avoid disclosing my keyword lists to doubleclick.net, I have to disable automatic loading of inline images when using AltaVista! Why is it that when I perform a search for, say, "gay OR nazi AND scientology", AltaVista tricks my browser to give this very search string away to an advertising company by means of an inline image (the contents of which has nothing to do with my search)? I think I can trust the AltaVista maintainers not to save my keyword lists for future analysis, but what about an advertising company? It's kind of serendipity reversed. When you open a book to look up information on a specific subject, the book scans your mind to find out what other interests and hobbies you have. Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University Box 325, S-751 05 UPPSALA, Sweden +46 18 183170 andersa(a)DoCS.UU.SE ------------------------------ <snip> Regards Russell Stuart Software Development Manager RSM Technology PTY LTD ---------------------- Phone: +61 7 3844 9631 Fax: +61 7 3844 9522 Email: R.Stuart(a)rsm.com.au --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ "If *you* don't go to FC97, *I* don't go to FC97"

1 0

Re: Trigger-Words...
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

harka(a)nycmetro.com wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hi there, > > does anybody know any contact points/Web pages, where I might get > some information on e-mail filtering via trigger-words? I am > interested in how this technology specifically works and a > collection of trigger-words would be nice too :) Look at http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/usenet/scrm/robomod/robomod.html, and look for the explanation of how bad.words.list works in my robomoderator. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Trigger-Words...
by Martin Janzen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

harka(a)nycmetro.com writes: >does anybody know any contact points/Web pages, where I might get >some information on e-mail filtering via trigger-words? I am >interested in how this technology specifically works and a >acollection of trigger-words would be nice too :) You might start with the Mail Filtering FAQ: http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/mail/filtering-faq/faq.h… It's pretty Unix-specific, covering procmail, Elm filter, and mailagent. For PC-based mailers, you're probably better off checking the documentation and/or the web page for the one you're using. Finally, take a look at the comp.mail.* newsgroups. Or just use the search engines, throwing in combinations of the above terms... -- Martin Janzen janzen(a)idacom.hp.com Pegasus Systems Group c/o Hewlett-Packard Company, CMD Vancouver

1 0

AltaVista sprouts a hole ...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Russell Stuart <R.Stuart(a)rsm.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:07:27 +1000 From: Russell Stuart <R.Stuart(a)rsm.com.au> To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: AltaVista sprouts a hole ... From: risko(a)csl.sri.com (RISKS List Owner) Newsgroups: comp.risks Subject: RISKS DIGEST 18.77 Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.1.853810937.risko(a)chiron.csl.sri.com> RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Monday 20 January 1997 Volume 18 : Issue 77 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks) ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator ***** See last item for further information, disclaimers, caveats, etc. ***** <snip> ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jan 97 23:52:00 +0100 From: Anders Andersson <andersa(a)Mizar.DoCS.UU.SE> Subject: Leaking WWW surfer interest profiles I notice that AltaVista's inline advertisements link to a server outside Digital, "ad.doubleclick.net", and that the URL includes the user's list of keywords being searched. I'm concerned that these URL's may occasionally leak information about the user's interests and inclinations to third parties, information which the user may prefer to keep private. This is not a new problem that appeared with the inline ads, since also the Referer: field of the HTTP protocol discloses to a target server exactly what AltaVista index page led the user to it. However, this requires that the user willfully follows that link. If sensitive information being leaked via the Referer: field is a problem, the user may obtain client software that withholds Referer: data, either conditionally or unconditionally. Also, a user who has asked AltaVista for "gay" pages is probably not too concerned about accidentally disclosing this fact to the maintainer of said "gay" pages. However, the doubleclick.net ads appear to bear no relationship to the keywords being searched, and they appear not only in the URL for the hyperlink to follow, but also in the IMG SRC URL. This means that in order to avoid disclosing my keyword lists to doubleclick.net, I have to disable automatic loading of inline images when using AltaVista! Why is it that when I perform a search for, say, "gay OR nazi AND scientology", AltaVista tricks my browser to give this very search string away to an advertising company by means of an inline image (the contents of which has nothing to do with my search)? I think I can trust the AltaVista maintainers not to save my keyword lists for future analysis, but what about an advertising company? It's kind of serendipity reversed. When you open a book to look up information on a specific subject, the book scans your mind to find out what other interests and hobbies you have. Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University Box 325, S-751 05 UPPSALA, Sweden +46 18 183170 andersa(a)DoCS.UU.SE ------------------------------ <snip> Regards Russell Stuart Software Development Manager RSM Technology PTY LTD ---------------------- Phone: +61 7 3844 9631 Fax: +61 7 3844 9522 Email: R.Stuart(a)rsm.com.au --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ "If *you* don't go to FC97, *I* don't go to FC97"

3 2

Re: Best Computer School?
by Matthew Toth 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

MIT is one the best schools in the country for C.S. Close behind is Carnegie Mellon University (C.M.U.) in Pittsburgh, PA. (the folks who put out CERT.) Not sure how much Crypto they do, though.

1 0

Recovery of Windows NT administrator password
by Garrard, David 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An inherited Windows NT system that I am involved with has a lost administrator password ( no one no longer knows what it is ). Can anyone point me to software products/companies that can help in the recovery. Given Microsoft's dismal record on security I am sure there must be solutions to this dilemma. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Best Regards David L. Garrard

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:32 PM 1/28/97 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: >This is really exagerating. You do not need a 4.0, 1600, etc. to be >admitted to MIT. Sure, you need good grades, but a 3.6 average and >1350-1400 SAT scores is perfectly adequate to be admitted to MIT. I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in Drama, and played Tennis. The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the Russian front!" >For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >school, too Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess. MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know."

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:12:36 -0500 > From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote in article <5cg99p$7a(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > The network is largely an intellectual creation. The hardware is > relatively unimportant, it can always be replaced. Try doing it without the hardware and software. There is a distinction, you apparently don't make, between the content and the methodology of distribution. Without the methodology there is no content. Ideas are cheap, distributing and trying them out (ie great social experiments) is expensive. This is why it is absolutely critical in a democratic society that those who own the means of distribution be left to their own means with minimal regulation based on the ideal 'if their actions do not harm another or their property without their prior consent' it isn't anyones business what they are doing with their distribution mechanisms. Whether you like it or not, each and every one of us have a responsibility to every other person on the planet. That responsibility is to ensure that our goals and desires don't infringe their goals and desires without their prior consent, this is a fundamenal responsibility of government. As hard as it is for many social scientist to accept privacy is a fundamental requirement for a equitable government. I express this simply by, "Democracy works not because of compromise but rather the refusal to compromise." > If you start from such a state and property centered ideology perhaps. > I'm a philosophical anarchist and I don't consider the state to have > "rights" over its "subjects", nor do I believe in the pure ideology of > property you do. The 'state' is its subjects and the rules that are enacted to regulate their behaviour. In case it hasn't occured to you, even the regulators are subjects, and in the case of clearly oppressive societies victims as much as those they subjugate. It isn't some etherial entity. Only you, and those that proscribe to your views, are claiming that states are some homogenous (or should be) set of rules and actions. The way you speak of 'state' and 'citizen' implies some clearly observable demarcation, it don't exist. This is the problem with EVERY form of government except a democracy, it assumes that people are cogs in a machine. If it satisfies one it will satisfy all. A democracy recognizes this difference in what people value and the goals they desire as a fundamental distinction (ie. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) worth protecting. I would suggest you read the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the US and consider long and hard the ramifications of the (currently unenforced) limitations of government authority. Even European governments might learn something. > Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the > controllers of China literally so since they stole most of their "property" > from the previous rulers. Malarky. The origin of property is at least 300,000 years old, potentialy over a Million, and much older than China could ever hope to claim and most definitely NOT based on any concept of government. Property comes from small family clans of people who chose to move from a hunter-gather society to one of agriculture. To do that means that you have to lay out fields or other areas for cultivation. Initialy these groups moved around because the fields would go fallow. At some point some bright folks, either by accident or intentional experimentation (probably both), found that rotating crops would allow them to stay in one place. This allowed families to grow. In very fertile areas this caused population explosions as individual clans grew and began to interact with other local clans. At some critical size, undetermined as best as I can determine, this allows specialization of effort. This specialization of effort is what leads to governments as we recognize them. When property was 'invented' there were no rulers because there was no larger human organization than a familial tribe. I personaly believe that the concept of 'property' is a fundamental aspect of human psychology and not any structures they might impliment to express that need. I am as certain as it is possible to be that a Cro-magnon cave man felt that his throwing stick was 'his'. If not why did they bury their dead with flowers and other objects that apparently belonged to the person in life? It sounds like, by extrapolation, that your assertion is that they had government in the modern sense because of this. An assertion I find laughable at best. > I believe that the relationship between a state and individual is > a much more complex one than the slavish subjection model > you propose. In this I am in agreement with practically every > philosopher since Locke. But I don't propose a slavish subject model, you keep trying to make it seem like that is what I am proposing. Let me make it clear, I utterly reject ANY model that makes distinctions between those who rule and those who are ruled. > It is true that there is the convenience of the state as agency but > the question is on whose behalf that agency is exercised. Nobodies. The state is a means to regulate resources and commerce, anything else is a misunderstanding of what a state is. > I see no reason why I should not meddle in the affairs of states > I'm not a 'subject" of. Then don't bitch when they meddle in your affairs. I am shure Saddam Hussein (who I personaly believe is a piece of shit) will find it reassuring that you won't raise a complaint next time he decides some place in Europe would be a nice place to hang out with his armies. > They are allowed Allowed, hell. They pay for the privilege just like everyone else. Despite what you might believe the Internet is not a right or something anyone has a right to. > to connect their machinery to the Internet so long > as they are prepared to accept the Internet's ethic. There is no Internet ethic just as there is no community standard. It is a convenient concept for intellectuals to pass off utterly senseless theories and explanations, and in many cases justify subjugation and regulation for no other reason than their own emotional and economic comfort. > As a citizen of Europe I disagree. I believe that the narrow and > parochial attitude of the French province breaches undertakings in the > Treaty of Rome and under the European declaration of human rights. Absolutely. The difference in our approaches is that you feel that you have found a solution that satisfies you and therefore it should satisfy everyone. With this I disagree completely. People are simply too diverse to lump into the categories that you would like. If the French have a model that won't work, let them figure it out on their own. > France is not a sovereign state and does not have the right to > pass laws that infringe on the rights granted to European citizens > as a whole. I suspect most French people would have something contrary to say about that. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Crypto verification needed for Pretty Safe Mail
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There have been questions raised on the newsgroups regarding Pretty Safe Mail, arguably the best implementation of a PGP product for the Macintosh. In response, the product manager at Highware has requested that a trusted third party verify the security of Pretty Safe Mail. However, a NON-U.S. cryptologer is needed. I'm including the post below. Please forward to any people you know who may qualify. Pretty Safe Mail is a GREAT product. If it can be shown to be safe and effective, it will do wonders to spread the use of strong crypto. ===== From: axel(a)highware.com (Axel de Landtsheer) Newsgroups: comp.security.pgp.discuss Subject: Re: Concerned about Pretty Safe Mail for Mac > I'm concerned about the product "Pretty Safe Mail" for the Macintosh, >by a company called Highware. I was wondering whether anyone here had >tried evaluating it at all. > > It is a complete PGP implementation (not a front-end). They claim >to have licensed some of PRZ's code from PGP. However, as far as I >can tell, they are not making any of the source code available. The source code for PSM is indeed not available. We are however eager to have the code checked by any trusted source. These sources cannot be US companies because of the new US regulations which state that US companies must not give such support to overseas companies. Us being a Belgian company, this makes things a little more difficult. Does anybody have a suggestion for such a trusted source outside the US? > As someone on the comp.security.pgp newsgroups pointed out, writing >a wonderful user interface on a PGP trojan horse that either crippled >the session key generator or used the session key to leak random >portions of secret key primes would be a perfect tactic for a >government wishing to penetrate PGP security. With such a great >interface, compared to the original PGP, it can't help but become >widely used. PSM is not a Trojan Horse. Does any trusted source want to check that? > I realize that without the source code, it's a major hassle, but >has anyone looked at Pretty Safe Mail (previously called Safemail) >at all for suspicious behavior? For example: > > 1) non-random session key generation? > 2) non-random key pair generation? > 3) unnecessary disk access to secret keys? > 4) anything else? Many people are worried about the random-key generation because they do not need to bang away on the keyboard for five minutes when they create a key pair. Apparently, this seems to loosen their nerves (I heard some people created about 10 key pairs a day - just a joke). In short, we use all events that happen on the Mac (clicks, typing, opening of windows, display of icons, ...) together with the time they happen, and encrypt these to fill a table which is the starting point for the random-number generator. Why make people type away on the keyboard if you have enough random events to start from? Again, we want to have this checked by a trusted source asap... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Axel de Landtsheer | Highware, Inc. | 109 av. H. Jaspar, 1060 Brussels, Belgium Product Manager | voice: +32 2 537-6810 fax: +32 2 537-5155 axel(a)highware.com | http://www.highware.com, ftp://ftp.highware.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To obtain my PGP key, send me a message with subject "Send PGP key"

1 0

CNN: Court ok's College control of Internet access
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Heavily edited. Forwarded message: > COURT SAYS COLLEGES CAN RESTRICT INTERNET ACCESS > > > January 28, 1997 > Web posted at: 1:35 p.m. EST > > NORMAN, Oklahoma (CNN) -- A U.S. District Court in Oklahoma has > ruled universities have the right to limit access to explicit > material on the Internet. > > A federal judge ruled University of Oklahoma president David Boren, > a former U.S. senator, has every right to determine what sites > students and faculty can view while on the campus Internet system. > > Boren was sued by University professor, Bill Loving, who claimed his > First Amendment rights were being infringed upon. > > The court ruled against Loving, also an attorney, saying his > constitutional rights were not violated and that he is not entitled > to injunctive relief. > > "I am certainly pleased by the judge's decision," Boren said. "The > university did its best to strike a careful balance in order to > protect legitimate academic and intellectual freedom while at the > same time assuring that the university not act as a distributor of > obscene material, which is not protected by the First Amendment." > rule

1 0

Physical meet, Sat. Feb. 15 - not 18. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From owner-austin-cpunks(a)ssz.com Tue Jan 28 20:10:19 1997 From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> Message-Id: <199701290209.UAA06585@einstein> Subject: Physical meet, Sat. Feb. 15 - not 18. To: austin-cpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com (Austin Cypherpunks) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:09:55 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 784 Sender: owner-austin-cpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: austin-cpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com Hi all, I apparently didn't pay much attention to what month I was looking at when I made the initial meeting. Turns out the 18th is a Tuesday obviously a day that few of us can make. As a result I looked at the 'real' Feb. calendar and the meeting date is as follows: Saturday, Feb. 15, 1997 6pm. HEB Central Market Restaurant Look for the red 2nd. ed. Applied Cryptography book For more info email 'austin-cpunks(a)ssz.com' Also invited to this meet are members of the mailing lists: Experimental Science Instrumentation Advanced Computer Experimentation Sorry for the confusion. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 2

Re: c2 internet accounts
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > does c2net still offer internet accounts? I liked their > offer for internet accounts with a 5 mb web site via > telnet. does anyone else know of a place for cheap > telnet only accounts? C2Net no longer offers new shell accounts and we are phasing out pre-existing accounts. We still offer virtual web hosting. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: can Sun Tzu be a cypherpunks?
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody(a)nowhere.com wrote: > Question: Can cypherpunks use these methods to defeat those > who would take our freedom? WARNING! "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" Is A Very Dangerous Document ------------------------------------------------------------------- It is reputed among many of the top minds in the Computer Industry to be a very real, and revealing, documentary of some of the horrors of the Industry which are sometimes rumored, but seldom exposed. But be warned-they say it in private, not in public. Though management at the major Corporations in the Industry brush aside the document as the mad ramblings of an unstable, failed business executive, the fact remains that there are more and more people coming forward who claim to have suffered demotions or loss of employment after deliberately or inadvertently revealing their support of the document's claims and it's authenticity. If you choose to read this manuscript, do not speak of it in casual conversation at your place of employment, or around strangers in any business or social environment. Though it is almost impossible to document cases of reprisal of this nature, the increasing numbers of ex-employees of major Corporations in the Computer Industry making these claims, and the devastating consequences they allege to their professional and private lives, make it wise to be discreet in expressing any opinion, or even knowledge, of this document. If you choose to share this document with others, it would be wise to do so discreetly, even anonymously, should you be unsure of the reliability and discretion of whomever you choose to share this knowledge with. Though I personally lean toward viewing the manuscript as authentic, my exhaustive research into it's origin has always come to a dead-end, even among the principals involved. C.J. Parker, former President of Pearl Harbor Computers, Inc., denied emphatically, in a face-to-face encounter with anything whatsoever to do with the document. When I pressed him with questions regarding the hasty demise of his business and the unraveling of his personal life after the public circulation of "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" began, he became very agitated and distraught, bordering on violence, and the interview was abruptly terminated. Dr. William M. Denney, one of the few principals in the manuscript referred to directly, was reluctant to be interviewed, but eventually made a few comments which I found to be very revealing. Dr. Denney, Vice-President of Basis, Inc. in Emmeryville, Ca., consistently rated as one of the top ten Unix Open Systems vendors in the world, said, "I deny any knowledge of or participation, in any way whatsoever, with anything connected to 'The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre', and it would be wise for others to do the same." I find this statement to be very cryptic and, at the same time, very revealing; very much in line with what would expect from one associated with the alleged underground computer society described in the manuscript. As for Mr. Torry Basford, a former employee of Bell Labs who was Mr. Parker's first mentor in the world of Unix and is rumored to be laboring in obscurity in a small community college somewhere in the southwestern U.S., Mr. Parker would only say, "The man has suffered enough, please leave him alone." Regardless of the origins or authenticity of the document, it is considered by many to be extremely unsettling, perhaps even dangerous, and one might be better served to avoid reading the manuscript, if for no other reason than simple peace of mind. ___________________________________ If you would like a copy of the manuscript, send me a private email indicating a desire to receive it. Toto

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > > jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote in article <5ch9f2$cuu(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > > any recognition of this fact. > > Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility > or consistency. > > If anyone tried to set up such a market and a price went out > on any of the heads of state fantasized about Mr Bell would be > dead as a doornail in a week. But, if Jim writes the bot well, puts it in an unknown place (remember, all communications are done through remailers), he could die, but the assassination bot would still work. It may be an interesting problem: what steps are necessary to take to provide for the bot maintainers' sudden death in such a way that the bot would survive for a long time (at least 10 years) w/o any maintenance? Several things need to be done, such as running several versions of the bot so that they could all communicate and work as hot standbys in case one of the instances stops communicating; change their anonymous address from time to time to deal with shut down remailers; probably slowly propagate as virii, so that killing them all would be hard; what else? It could be done akin to Thompson's famous backdoor in /bin/login, as a perpetual trojan horse. How to prevent the bot's detection by sysadmins? - Igor.

1 0

Recovery of Windows NT administrator password
by Garrard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An inherited Windows NT system that I am involved with has a lost administrator password ( no one no longer knows what it is ). Can anyone point me to software products/companies that can help in the recovery. Given Microsoft's dismal record on security I am sure there must be solutions to this dilemma. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Best Regards David L. Garrard

1 0

Physical meet, Sat. Feb. 15 - not 18.
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I apparently didn't pay much attention to what month I was looking at when I made the initial meeting. Turns out the 18th is a Tuesday obviously a day that few of us can make. As a result I looked at the 'real' Feb. calendar and the meeting date is as follows: Saturday, Feb. 15, 1997 6pm. HEB Central Market Restaurant Look for the red 2nd. ed. Applied Cryptography book For more info email 'austin-cpunks(a)ssz.com' Also invited to this meet are members of the mailing lists: Experimental Science Instrumentation Advanced Computer Experimentation Sorry for the confusion. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:32 PM 1/28/97 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: >This is really exagerating. You do not need a 4.0, 1600, etc. to be >admitted to MIT. Sure, you need good grades, but a 3.6 average and >1350-1400 SAT scores is perfectly adequate to be admitted to MIT. I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in Drama, and played Tennis. The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the Russian front!" >For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >school, too Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess. MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know."

3 2

CNN: Court ok's College control of Internet access
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Heavily edited. Forwarded message: > COURT SAYS COLLEGES CAN RESTRICT INTERNET ACCESS > > > January 28, 1997 > Web posted at: 1:35 p.m. EST > > NORMAN, Oklahoma (CNN) -- A U.S. District Court in Oklahoma has > ruled universities have the right to limit access to explicit > material on the Internet. > > A federal judge ruled University of Oklahoma president David Boren, > a former U.S. senator, has every right to determine what sites > students and faculty can view while on the campus Internet system. > > Boren was sued by University professor, Bill Loving, who claimed his > First Amendment rights were being infringed upon. > > The court ruled against Loving, also an attorney, saying his > constitutional rights were not violated and that he is not entitled > to injunctive relief. > > "I am certainly pleased by the judge's decision," Boren said. "The > university did its best to strike a careful balance in order to > protect legitimate academic and intellectual freedom while at the > same time assuring that the university not act as a distributor of > obscene material, which is not protected by the First Amendment." > rule

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by Matthew Toth 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

MIT is one the best schools in the country for C.S. Close behind is Carnegie Mellon University (C.M.U.) in Pittsburgh, PA. (the folks who put out CERT.) Not sure how much Crypto they do, though.

2 1

Re: Machine readable form (was:RE: [DES] DES Key Recovery Project, Progress Report #7)
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Read the following text from the introduction to the new December 30, 1996 regulations: A printed book or other printed material setting forth encryption source code is not itself subject to the EAR (see Sec. 734.3(b)(2)). However, notwithstanding Sec. 734.3(b)(2), encryption source code in electronic form or media (e.g., computer diskette or CD ROM) remains subject to the EAR (see Sec. 734.3(b)(3)). The administration continues to review whether and to what extent scannable encryption source or object code in printed form should be subject to the EAR and reserves the option to impose export controls on such software for national security and foreign policy reasons. This seems clear enough. If it's printed on paper, it's kosher for export. But if we're really overt about it, we may goad the government into attempting to control printed source code as well. That could prove most interesting. Phil

2 1

Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by Ian Goldberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

EXPORTABLE CRYPTOGRAPHY TOTALLY INSECURE: CHALLENGE CIPHER BROKEN IMMEDIATELY January 28, 1997 - Ian Goldberg, a UC Berkeley graduate student, announced today that he had successfully cracked RSA Data Security Inc.'s 40-bit challenge cipher in just under 3.5 hours. RSA challenged scientists to break their encryption technology, offering a $1000 award for breaking the weakest version of the code. Their offering was designed to stimulate research and practical experience with the security of today's codes. The number of bits in a cipher is an indication of the maximum level of security the cipher can provide. Each additional bit doubles the potential security level of the cipher. A recent panel of experts recommended using 90-bit ciphers, and 128-bit ciphers are commonly used throughout the world, but US government regulations restrict exportable US products to a mere 40 bits. Goldberg's announcement, which came just three and a half hours after RSA started their contest, provides very strong evidence that 40-bit ciphers are totally unsuitable for practical security. "This is the final proof of what we've known for years: 40-bit encryption technology is obsolete," Goldberg said. The US export restrictions have limited the deployment of technology that could greatly strengthen security on the Internet, often affecting both foreign and domestic users. "We know how to build strong encryption; the government just won't let us deploy it. We need strong encryption to uphold privacy, maintain security, and support commerce on the Internet -- these export restrictions on cryptography must be lifted," Goldberg explained. Fittingly, when Goldberg finally unscrambled the challenge message, it read: "This is why you should use a longer key." Goldberg used UC Berkeley's Network of Workstations (known as the NOW) to harness the computational resources of about 250 idle machines. This allowed him to test 100 billion possible "keys" per hour -- analogous to safecracking by trying every possible combination at high speed. This amount of computing power is available with little overhead cost to students and employees at many large educational institutions and corporations. Goldberg is a founding member of the ISAAC computer security research group at UC Berkeley. In the Fall of 1995, the ISAAC group made headlines by revealing a major security flaw in Netscape's web browser.

1 0

Crypto verification needed for Pretty Safe Mail
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There have been questions raised on the newsgroups regarding Pretty Safe Mail, arguably the best implementation of a PGP product for the Macintosh. In response, the product manager at Highware has requested that a trusted third party verify the security of Pretty Safe Mail. However, a NON-U.S. cryptologer is needed. I'm including the post below. Please forward to any people you know who may qualify. Pretty Safe Mail is a GREAT product. If it can be shown to be safe and effective, it will do wonders to spread the use of strong crypto. ===== From: axel(a)highware.com (Axel de Landtsheer) Newsgroups: comp.security.pgp.discuss Subject: Re: Concerned about Pretty Safe Mail for Mac > I'm concerned about the product "Pretty Safe Mail" for the Macintosh, >by a company called Highware. I was wondering whether anyone here had >tried evaluating it at all. > > It is a complete PGP implementation (not a front-end). They claim >to have licensed some of PRZ's code from PGP. However, as far as I >can tell, they are not making any of the source code available. The source code for PSM is indeed not available. We are however eager to have the code checked by any trusted source. These sources cannot be US companies because of the new US regulations which state that US companies must not give such support to overseas companies. Us being a Belgian company, this makes things a little more difficult. Does anybody have a suggestion for such a trusted source outside the US? > As someone on the comp.security.pgp newsgroups pointed out, writing >a wonderful user interface on a PGP trojan horse that either crippled >the session key generator or used the session key to leak random >portions of secret key primes would be a perfect tactic for a >government wishing to penetrate PGP security. With such a great >interface, compared to the original PGP, it can't help but become >widely used. PSM is not a Trojan Horse. Does any trusted source want to check that? > I realize that without the source code, it's a major hassle, but >has anyone looked at Pretty Safe Mail (previously called Safemail) >at all for suspicious behavior? For example: > > 1) non-random session key generation? > 2) non-random key pair generation? > 3) unnecessary disk access to secret keys? > 4) anything else? Many people are worried about the random-key generation because they do not need to bang away on the keyboard for five minutes when they create a key pair. Apparently, this seems to loosen their nerves (I heard some people created about 10 key pairs a day - just a joke). In short, we use all events that happen on the Mac (clicks, typing, opening of windows, display of icons, ...) together with the time they happen, and encrypt these to fill a table which is the starting point for the random-number generator. Why make people type away on the keyboard if you have enough random events to start from? Again, we want to have this checked by a trusted source asap... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Axel de Landtsheer | Highware, Inc. | 109 av. H. Jaspar, 1060 Brussels, Belgium Product Manager | voice: +32 2 537-6810 fax: +32 2 537-5155 axel(a)highware.com | http://www.highware.com, ftp://ftp.highware.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To obtain my PGP key, send me a message with subject "Send PGP key"

1 0

can Sun Tzu be a cypherpunks?
by nobody＠nowhere.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Quotations from the Art Of War by Sun Tzu A Military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective. Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion. Use humility to make them haughty. Tire them by flight. Cause division among them. Attack when they are unprepared, make your move when they do not expect it. The formation and procedure used by the military should not be divulged beforehand. Comment: He seems to be advocating security through obscurity here. The one who figures on victory at headquarters before even doing battle is the one who has the most strategic factors on his side. The one who figures on inability to prevail at headquarters before doing battle is the one who has the least strategic factors on his side. The one with many strategic factors in his favor wins, the one with few strategic factors in his favor loses--how much more so for the one with no strategic factors in his favor. Observing the matter this way, I can see who will win and who will lose. The superior militarist strikes while schemes are being laid. The next best is to attack alliances. The next best is to attack the army. Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent. Therefore skilled warriors are able to be invincible, but they cannot cause opponents to be vulnerable. That is why it is said that victory can be discerned but not manufactured. Invincibility is a matter of defense, vulnerability is a matter of attack. Therefore the victories of good warriors are not noted for cleverness or bravery. Therefore their victories in battle are not flukes. Their victories are not flukes because they position themselves where they will surely win, prevailing over those who have already lost. So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose, and do not overlook conditions that make an opponent prone to defeat. Therefore a victorious army first wins and then seeks battle; a defeated army first battles and then seeks victory. Those who use arms well cultivate the Way and keep the rules. Thus they can govern in such a way as to prevail over the corrupt. Comment: Would it not be wonderful if we could prevail over the corrupt? Making the armies able to take on opponents without being defeated is a matter of unorthodox and orthodox methods. Therefore those skilled at the unorthodox are infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers. When they come to an end, they begin again, like the days and months; they die and are reborn, like the four seasons. The unorthodox and the orthodox give rise to each other, like a beginningless circle--who could exhaust them? Disorder arises from order, cowardice arises from courage, weakness arises from strength. Therefore those who skillfully move opponents make formations that the opponents are sure to follow, give what opponents are sure to take. They move opponents with the prospect of gain, waiting for them in ambush. To unfailingly take what you attack, attack where there is no defense. For unfailingly secure defense, defend where there is no attack. So in the case of those who are skilled in attack, their opponents do not know where to defend. In the case of those skilled in defense, their opponents do not know where to attack. Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate. Comment: Are cypherpunks capable of this? To advance irresistibly, push through their gaps, to retreat elusively, outspeed them. Induce them to adopt specific formations, in order to know the ground of death and life. Comment: Sounds like known plaintext attack to me. Therefore the consummation of forming an army is to arrive at formlessness. When you have no form, undercover espionage cannot find out anything, intelligence cannot form a strategy. Comment: Sun Tzu seems to being saying that if your cipher is properly designed, you need not rely on security through obscurity. Victory over multitudes by means of formation is unknowable to the multitudes. Everyone knows the form by which I am victorious, but no one knows the form by which I ensure victory. Military formation is like water--the form of water is to avoid the high and go to the low, the form of a military force is to avoid the full and attack the empty; the flow of water is determined by the earth, the victory of a military force is determined by the opponent. So a military force has not constant formation, water has no constant shape;the ability to gain victory by changing and adapting according to the opponent is called genius. Foreknowledge cannot be gotten from ghosts and spirits, cannot be had by analogy, cannot be found out by calculation. It must be obtained from people, people know the conditions of the enemy. There are five kinds of spy: The local spy, the inside spy, the reverse spy, the dead spy, and the living spy. When the five kinds of spies are all active, no one knows their routes--this is called organizational genius, and is valuable to the leadership. Local spies are hired from among the people of a locality; Inside spies are hired from among enemy officials. Reverse spies are hired from enemy spies. Dead spies transmit false intelligence to enemy spies. Living spies come back to report. Question: Can cypherpunks use these methods to defeat those who would take our freedom?

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:12:36 -0500 > From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote in article <5cg99p$7a(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > The network is largely an intellectual creation. The hardware is > relatively unimportant, it can always be replaced. Try doing it without the hardware and software. There is a distinction, you apparently don't make, between the content and the methodology of distribution. Without the methodology there is no content. Ideas are cheap, distributing and trying them out (ie great social experiments) is expensive. This is why it is absolutely critical in a democratic society that those who own the means of distribution be left to their own means with minimal regulation based on the ideal 'if their actions do not harm another or their property without their prior consent' it isn't anyones business what they are doing with their distribution mechanisms. Whether you like it or not, each and every one of us have a responsibility to every other person on the planet. That responsibility is to ensure that our goals and desires don't infringe their goals and desires without their prior consent, this is a fundamenal responsibility of government. As hard as it is for many social scientist to accept privacy is a fundamental requirement for a equitable government. I express this simply by, "Democracy works not because of compromise but rather the refusal to compromise." > If you start from such a state and property centered ideology perhaps. > I'm a philosophical anarchist and I don't consider the state to have > "rights" over its "subjects", nor do I believe in the pure ideology of > property you do. The 'state' is its subjects and the rules that are enacted to regulate their behaviour. In case it hasn't occured to you, even the regulators are subjects, and in the case of clearly oppressive societies victims as much as those they subjugate. It isn't some etherial entity. Only you, and those that proscribe to your views, are claiming that states are some homogenous (or should be) set of rules and actions. The way you speak of 'state' and 'citizen' implies some clearly observable demarcation, it don't exist. This is the problem with EVERY form of government except a democracy, it assumes that people are cogs in a machine. If it satisfies one it will satisfy all. A democracy recognizes this difference in what people value and the goals they desire as a fundamental distinction (ie. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) worth protecting. I would suggest you read the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the US and consider long and hard the ramifications of the (currently unenforced) limitations of government authority. Even European governments might learn something. > Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the > controllers of China literally so since they stole most of their "property" > from the previous rulers. Malarky. The origin of property is at least 300,000 years old, potentialy over a Million, and much older than China could ever hope to claim and most definitely NOT based on any concept of government. Property comes from small family clans of people who chose to move from a hunter-gather society to one of agriculture. To do that means that you have to lay out fields or other areas for cultivation. Initialy these groups moved around because the fields would go fallow. At some point some bright folks, either by accident or intentional experimentation (probably both), found that rotating crops would allow them to stay in one place. This allowed families to grow. In very fertile areas this caused population explosions as individual clans grew and began to interact with other local clans. At some critical size, undetermined as best as I can determine, this allows specialization of effort. This specialization of effort is what leads to governments as we recognize them. When property was 'invented' there were no rulers because there was no larger human organization than a familial tribe. I personaly believe that the concept of 'property' is a fundamental aspect of human psychology and not any structures they might impliment to express that need. I am as certain as it is possible to be that a Cro-magnon cave man felt that his throwing stick was 'his'. If not why did they bury their dead with flowers and other objects that apparently belonged to the person in life? It sounds like, by extrapolation, that your assertion is that they had government in the modern sense because of this. An assertion I find laughable at best. > I believe that the relationship between a state and individual is > a much more complex one than the slavish subjection model > you propose. In this I am in agreement with practically every > philosopher since Locke. But I don't propose a slavish subject model, you keep trying to make it seem like that is what I am proposing. Let me make it clear, I utterly reject ANY model that makes distinctions between those who rule and those who are ruled. > It is true that there is the convenience of the state as agency but > the question is on whose behalf that agency is exercised. Nobodies. The state is a means to regulate resources and commerce, anything else is a misunderstanding of what a state is. > I see no reason why I should not meddle in the affairs of states > I'm not a 'subject" of. Then don't bitch when they meddle in your affairs. I am shure Saddam Hussein (who I personaly believe is a piece of shit) will find it reassuring that you won't raise a complaint next time he decides some place in Europe would be a nice place to hang out with his armies. > They are allowed Allowed, hell. They pay for the privilege just like everyone else. Despite what you might believe the Internet is not a right or something anyone has a right to. > to connect their machinery to the Internet so long > as they are prepared to accept the Internet's ethic. There is no Internet ethic just as there is no community standard. It is a convenient concept for intellectuals to pass off utterly senseless theories and explanations, and in many cases justify subjugation and regulation for no other reason than their own emotional and economic comfort. > As a citizen of Europe I disagree. I believe that the narrow and > parochial attitude of the French province breaches undertakings in the > Treaty of Rome and under the European declaration of human rights. Absolutely. The difference in our approaches is that you feel that you have found a solution that satisfies you and therefore it should satisfy everyone. With this I disagree completely. People are simply too diverse to lump into the categories that you would like. If the French have a model that won't work, let them figure it out on their own. > France is not a sovereign state and does not have the right to > pass laws that infringe on the rights granted to European citizens > as a whole. I suspect most French people would have something contrary to say about that. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

[ANNOUNCEMENT] FBI at it again
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Drunken Virus wears satin lingerie embroidered with pink swastikas, prancing around for his homosexual, AIDS infected lovers. ___ {~._.~} ( Y ) Dr.Drunken Virus ()~*~() (_)-(_)

1 0

Mondex
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Degenerate L[ibel] Vandal K[ocksucker] Of The Minute will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own son's prepubescent body. o_o ( ) Degenerate L[ibel] Vandal K[ocksucker] Of The Minute ( | | ) ' " " `

1 0

He's back
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dumbbell Virus K]retin[ Of The Moment enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic queer friends. ,_, *-._W_,-* Dr.Dumbbell Virus K]retin[ Of The Moment `-;-;-' " "

1 0

More Circumventing the ITAR
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm curious as to exactly what the ITAR/EAR/Whatever says specifically about "unrestricted FTP sites." My program, Kremlin, is available for download at the web page below. On my web page, I have some stuff in bold print that informs about the ITAR and tells people to go away if they're not from the US or Canada. Does this count as an unrestricted FTP site? It's not all that much different from what MIT has up for PGP. Also, back to the question of registration numbers. A registration number is just a string of letters and numbers, and is essentially the same as a friendly letter; it contains no cryptographic code. For all anyone knows, I could just be charging for pseudo-random numbers, again, nothing of cryptographic significance. Is it illegal for me to mail someone outside of the US or Canada a registration code? Thanks for any help. Mark Rosen FireSoft - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/2690 Mark Eats AOL - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6660

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Phill" wrote: >I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into >the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool >for confirming the present social order which is manifestly >corrupt. I am woman, hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore As R. J. Wagner once said, "Koo koo, baby." Hey, I hope that the above is construed as neither a flame nor as "off topic". May I additionally congratulate Nurdane on her birthday? Yo "Phill"! When's your cyber-revolutionary birthday? Maybe we can all chip in to buy you a biscuit. (See, in England, they say, "That certainly takes the biscuit". Eh, "Phill"?) BTW, "Phill", did you want to make good on your bet to Sandy at this time? Ain't C-punks fun nowadays?

1 0

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:33 AM 1/28/97 -0500, aga wrote: >On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote: > >> At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >> >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel >> >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government >> >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured >> >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. >> >> On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, >> that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in >> some places) still on the books. > >Jim, either you are full of shit or that Law is VERY >unconstitutional. The first amendment prohibits any Criminal Laws >from being made against libel. You'd think that, wouldn't you? Yes, I agree that those laws are unconstitutional, but so is about 90+% of what the Federal government does today. Sigh. Criminal libel statutes are apparently (in the US, at least) a holdover from an earlier era in which government took the place of King George, and wanted the power to punish people who were too outspoken. The fact that they are "never" (?) used anymore is presumably a reflection of their unconstitutionality. Criminal libel statues should also be considered unconstitutional because they give way too much leeway to the prosecutor to decide whom to prosecute. His friends will never be charged, but his enemies will. One obvious problem with the LACK of a criminal libel statute, from the standpoint of the "government-controlling-class," or "the bigshots," is that it's impossible to sue (and collect from) a (comparatively) poor person for defaming him...but it's still possible to put him in jail. Civil libel is, therefore, essentially useless to a government agent as a means of keeping the masses in line. Myself, I believe that libel should be eliminated as a cause of action in civil cases as well as it has, de facto, in the criminal area. If anything, the ability to sue for libel makes things worse: There is an illusion that this is easy and straightforward, if not economical. It is neither. The result is that people are actually MORE likely to believe a printed falsehood because they incorrectly assume that if it wasn't true, it couldn't be printed. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: > > >jim bell wrote: > >> > >> At 10:21 PM 1/26/97 -0800, blanc wrote: > >> >From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') > >> >Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > >> >prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > >> >any recognition of this fact. > >> >........................................................ > >> > > >> >1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? > >> > >> Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list > >> concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using > >> encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of > >> using encryption. > > > >Actually AP is one of the more interesting topics here. I think that there > >is a clear need for an AP bot. > > > >Do you feel like writing it? > > > > - Igor. > > Jim's all talk, I on the other hand am serious. Did you receive my Monday > e-mail? > yes, and found it interesting. - Igor.

1 0

More Circumventing the ITAR
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm curious as to exactly what the ITAR/EAR/Whatever says specifically about "unrestricted FTP sites." My program, Kremlin, is available for download at the web page below. On my web page, I have some stuff in bold print that informs about the ITAR and tells people to go away if they're not from the US or Canada. Does this count as an unrestricted FTP site? It's not all that much different from what MIT has up for PGP. Also, back to the question of registration numbers. A registration number is just a string of letters and numbers, and is essentially the same as a friendly letter; it contains no cryptographic code. For all anyone knows, I could just be charging for pseudo-random numbers, again, nothing of cryptographic significance. Is it illegal for me to mail someone outside of the US or Canada a registration code? Thanks for any help. Mark Rosen FireSoft - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/2690 Mark Eats AOL - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6660

2 1

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yee-hah! Congratulations (and enjoy the $1000 check!) So what did you do interesting cryptographically in the crack, other than coordinating a bunch of workstations? Was it just brute force with well-tuned code? Given the figures in your press release, it sounds like you tested about 350 billion keys out of a trillion possible, so you hit the winner a shade early. That's about 400,000 keys/sec/box. Are the machines mostly Pentiums, Alphas, Suns, etc.? At 03:59 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Ian Goldberg <iang(a)cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >EXPORTABLE CRYPTOGRAPHY TOTALLY INSECURE: CHALLENGE CIPHER BROKEN IMMEDIATELY > >January 28, 1997 - Ian Goldberg, a UC Berkeley graduate student, >announced today that he had successfully cracked RSA Data Security >Inc.'s 40-bit challenge cipher in just under 3.5 hours. .... >Goldberg used UC Berkeley's Network of Workstations (known as the NOW) >to harness the computational resources of about 250 idle machines. >This allowed him to test 100 billion possible "keys" per hour -- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

3 2

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:33 AM 1/28/97 -0500, aga wrote: >On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote: > >> At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >> >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel >> >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government >> >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured >> >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. >> >> On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, >> that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in >> some places) still on the books. > >Jim, either you are full of shit or that Law is VERY >unconstitutional. The first amendment prohibits any Criminal Laws >from being made against libel. You'd think that, wouldn't you? Yes, I agree that those laws are unconstitutional, but so is about 90+% of what the Federal government does today. Sigh. Criminal libel statutes are apparently (in the US, at least) a holdover from an earlier era in which government took the place of King George, and wanted the power to punish people who were too outspoken. The fact that they are "never" (?) used anymore is presumably a reflection of their unconstitutionality. Criminal libel statues should also be considered unconstitutional because they give way too much leeway to the prosecutor to decide whom to prosecute. His friends will never be charged, but his enemies will. One obvious problem with the LACK of a criminal libel statute, from the standpoint of the "government-controlling-class," or "the bigshots," is that it's impossible to sue (and collect from) a (comparatively) poor person for defaming him...but it's still possible to put him in jail. Civil libel is, therefore, essentially useless to a government agent as a means of keeping the masses in line. Myself, I believe that libel should be eliminated as a cause of action in civil cases as well as it has, de facto, in the criminal area. If anything, the ability to sue for libel makes things worse: There is an illusion that this is easy and straightforward, if not economical. It is neither. The result is that people are actually MORE likely to believe a printed falsehood because they incorrectly assume that if it wasn't true, it couldn't be printed. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>In our society, which, if I remember correctly, 10% of the population >control 90% of the wealth, AP would only lead to 10% of the population being >able to screw the remaining 90%. At least as it is, it takes a simple >majority. > >As for the murder of the rich, here is a scenerio. > >A collection of poor pool their capitol to have a tyrant killed. >The tyrant assembles a counter-wager saying that anyone able to prove thier >ability to kill him without harming him, and who can show they got through >will get 110% of the poor's bid. >The household is told that a standing bounty has been placed with a >collection of individuals, on the head of the trigger man involved in the >tyrants murder. >The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the >wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the >tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. >The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more >by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams. I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no motive other than financial gain. I would submit that there are those that have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks acceptable. These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the rich/powerful --Steve

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Phill" wrote: >I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into >the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool >for confirming the present social order which is manifestly >corrupt. I am woman, hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore As R. J. Wagner once said, "Koo koo, baby." Hey, I hope that the above is construed as neither a flame nor as "off topic". May I additionally congratulate Nurdane on her birthday? Yo "Phill"! When's your cyber-revolutionary birthday? Maybe we can all chip in to buy you a biscuit. (See, in England, they say, "That certainly takes the biscuit". Eh, "Phill"?) BTW, "Phill", did you want to make good on your bet to Sandy at this time? Ain't C-punks fun nowadays?

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis The Mafia in the U.S. doesn't work. The sicilian Mafia is very successful at assassinating any public officials that fucks with it. ............................................................ What do you suppose they would do if someone like you tried to break up their meetings? :>) .. Blanc

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: jim bell [ on discussing AP on the cpunk list]: Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of using encryption. -- Well, you're right, this is probably a good place to discuss it, so all the NSA spooks will know what some of youall are up to. [ why the Iraquis haven't thought of applying it themselves - to Saddam]: As for why the ordinary Iraquis didn't think of it... Or the ordinary people of any or every country, as well. Why didn't THEY think of it? -- I was thinking the reason that most people don't think of applying AP is because they're normal. It is not the first thought of a normal person to kill another human, just because they've been offended - even severely. It takes an extraordinary circumstance to motivate one to such destruction, especially if there are a thousand armed troops supporting the object of the attempt. But in fact I do think that many in Iraq (whoever they were) did consider it seriously and have attempted to get rid of Saddam. I heard on a TV special that he has survived about 5 or so attempts on his life. This means that not only was he not killed, but he didn't learn anything from it and it created no fear in him about continuing to rule as a dictator. It probably was more discouraging to his enemies than himself. [ on why the Mafia hasn't achieved a rational society by the use of AP]: In fact, apparently, they function diametrically opposed to the AP system. A complete AP-like system is structured (via encryption, etc) to totally avoid anybody having to trust anyone else. Each participant is kept honest mathematically. Nobody can inform on anyone else, because nobody knows anyone else's identity. -- There are extraordinary times when people, even though they be of sound mind and body, are moved to band together and kill another person. There are a few occurances in history that anyone can immediately think of as examples. But this is in an *extra-ordinary* situation. A society of people - where "society" indicates their desire to live in each other's company, associating openly and developing working relations - would not really be a "society", would not last as an association of people, if they were expecting extreme, destructive reactions from others in response to any degree of perceived insult from themselves. Therefore, although I can appreciate the need to be able to deal with political tyrants by just killing them, and currently encryption and anonymity makes it possible to do this "blindly" without anyone knowing each other, I can't see where implementing this method of relating to others, in a system of daily operating procedures, would do better than to create an atmosphere of total paranoia and psychological breakdowns. I think it is very important that individuals be able to defend themselves - from anyone. It is unfortunate that citizen-units are not typically instructed in the methods of self-defense, nor especially allowed to practice it without "official authorization". If we were better able to do this, the fact that anyone anywhere could immediately deal with threats to their existence would in itself be an impressive "deterrent", contributing to the general welfare and peace. Be that as it may, although the capacities of encryption and the internet make anonymous AP possible, the drive of human intelligence is toward knowledge, towards knowing the reasons for things. It would wish to know what is right or wrong, it would wish to know how to be the most accurate, it would wish to know about cause and effect, it would wish to know how to be in command of itself, normally. If someone does something "wrong" which makes another unhappy, normally they will wish to know what it was and how to correct it. If every time someone made a mistake they got punished, without the opportunity to understand the error and without the opportunity to make corrections, they would be a psychological wreck. If every time someone made mistake they got assassinated, not only would no one wish to do anything for fear of losing their lives, creating a "society" of timid sheep, there probably wouldn't be many people remaining to savor the triumph of being superior. AP is just another form of war. You can bet that if assassinations increased a hundred fold as a result of your method, not only "governments" but some very bright people would get together to figure out a defense against it, for they also would be "at risk". .. Blanc

3 2

Re: Best Computer School?
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rick Osborne wrote: >Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying >overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess. Wrong! White-americans play a very important and useful role in the new multi-cultural society. Sheesh! _Someone's_ got to work, support their families, pay taxes, and obey the law. Hee hee! Him so stoopit!

1 0

Re: Machine readable form (was:RE: [DES] DES Key Recovery Project, Progress Report #7)
by Tobin Fricke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> This seems clear enough. If it's printed on paper, it's kosher for > export. But if we're really overt about it, we may goad the government > into attempting to control printed source code as well. That could > prove most interesting. Hmmm.. Printing out, say, PGP as a book where each page is a 2 dimensional bar code would be rather interesting. Then again, OCR works pretty well for normal text. A printed book or other printed material setting forth encryption source code is not itself subject to the EAR (see Sec. 734.3(b)(2)). However, notwithstanding Sec. 734.3(b)(2), encryption source code in electronic form or media (e.g., computer diskette or CD ROM) remains subject to the EAR (see Sec. 734.3(b)(3)). Does a barcode fall under "electronic form or media" or is it "printed material"? What about punched cards? (-: Tobin Fricke

1 0

Re: RC5-12/32/5 contest solved
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Any bets on whether the $5000 RC5-12/32/6 contest will be solved before the www.rsa.com contest status web page is updated? :-) Or how long before someone in the government starts talking about how 56 bits takes 65,000 times as long to solve as 40 bits, which is 26 years for a whole building full of computers, and even 48 bits ought to take a month and a half for a whole building full of computers (or supercomputers, if they hype it up....)? At 09:55 PM 1/28/97 +0100, Germano Caronni <caronni(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch> wrote: >challenge: RC5-32/12/5 >time: from start of contest until Tue Jan 28 21:54:58 1997 >method: massive distributed coordinated keysearch, details later which was a bit slower than Ian Goldberg's crack, but pretty close. How many machines were you using, on average? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0